Computer controlled 5" puffy should not damage friendly aircraft

[715]

I did those tests and posted the results in another TF ack thread.  B17s at 6800 ft alt.  No other targets and no manned gunners (did offline).  Data results from ten trials:
Number of times TF protected itself and stopped all three bombers before they dropped their bombs: zero.
Number of times TF killed two out of three bombers: zero.
Number of times TF killed one out of three bombers: once.

[Lusche]

I would run such tests if I had something like a 'flak alley' terrain. Several strats in a row, maybe 3-4 sectors long, so I could simply fly in a straight line (different speeds/altitudes/planes) and take notes.

Second thought: Maybe I can create a similar setup using several CVs... 

[715]

I would run such tests if I had something like a 'flak alley' terrain. Several strats in a row, maybe 3-4 sectors long, so I could simply fly in a straight line (different speeds/altitudes/planes) and take notes.

Second thought: Maybe I can create a similar setup using several CVs...  

But if you continue on from one TF to the next you are biasing the results because you might have taken some damage from the previous TF. 

I was going to set up an air spawn near the TF but I'm too stupid to know how to do that so I just took off and climbed out ten times.

[Lusche]

But if you continue on from one TF to the next you are biasing the results because you might have taken some damage from the previous TF. 

In my opinion it makes results much more meaningful and easier to conduct. When I place 8 TG's in a row, evenly distanced and driving in tight circles, I can simply fly in a straight line over them and note the time when the plane is finally going down.
That way it's much easier to compare the "resistance" different bomber types, different speeds or altitudes for example.


I think I will give it a try tomorrow.

[715]

But I thought the point was to assess the probability of the TF flak defending against a fresh set of bombers (not a damaged set).

[Lusche]

But I thought the point was to assess the probability of the TF flak defending against a fresh set of bombers (not a damaged set).

No. The point of my tests would be much more far reaching, goign one level higher: To see the effect puffy ack has on different type of planes, at different altitudes and different speeds.
The setup I outlined above should enable me to do so.

[Babalonian]

No. The point of my tests would be much more far reaching, goign one level higher: To see the effect puffy ack has on different type of planes, at different altitudes and different speeds.
The setup I outlined above should enable me to do so.

Your plan would put a lot of philosophers out of buisness (and right before the holidays).

My guess is you'll find an average of three categories, within a zero to fatal distance (or near-fatal distance to bombers - but that's siding with the crowd that thinks they're notabley tougher than fighters) around your aircraft, superficial to medium and moderate distances, and ones too far out to possibley damage your ac but are potentialy lethal to others.  Whatever it comes to, I'll be interested in your results.

[bustr]

So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?

[Babalonian]

So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?

I wouldn't argue that nobody has done anything similar or like this - but I would argue to what detailed extent.  For conclusively settling the debate on auto-puffy treating bombers differently than fighters I think it would require setting up a flak alley and then reviewing the film of your runs for damage incurred to your plane (and drones) and to what extent and from what type of puffy-impact (direct, near-direct, close, far, etc.).

I've only hypothesised about it myself - I don't think it treats any aircraft differently. I suspect bombers are notabley tougher and more resilient than most fighters.  I also suspect that bombers, given they're 2x or greater a fighter's size, get hit by the puffy ack a lot more than a fighter does for the same amount of time exposed to it.  Fighters thus getting hit less often, but when they do they suffer greater - sound familiar?

[bustr]

Unless Hitech is speaking Martian, he plainly said that a few pages back. Then the house accused him of prevaricating his answer versus their personal busted kesters in fighters or lack of in bombers. One might infer they don't beleive his verasity on the subject of his own programing results as he designed them to function in the game. At least no one has gotten banned yet by trying to speak their situational truth to his personal relationship with his own coad in terms he might not be on top of his game.

I guess Lusche's experiment would define the operational parameters of the ack and what can be generaly expected, creating a more specific language to dialogue Hitech with.

So do we want our AI ack to auto target us like the enemy or continue damaging and killing us if we venture into the targeting feild of the enemy con being hit by our AI ack? So does anyone know the safe distance to not be included in the AI AAA targeting function for different sized aircraft in the game?

In WW2 ack didn't care what side you were on when it went off or hit you. Maybe Our manned and AI ack should be set to act the same way to give us a real subject to complain at Hitech over. Setup a new monthly player stat of shame for the most freindlies shot down. So did anyone dive after a doodlebug when the AAA guys were firing at it in WW2? Did our CAP dive after japanese planes when the ships AAA was firing at them? I've read after action reports from the ETO of german planes diving through their own AAA trying to loose allied fighters and getting killed themselves by the triple AAA.

[715]

So no one has gone offline on say NDisles and flown a bomber low over an enemy CV, pulled up the damge list and see if it accrues system damage as you pass over the CV?

In my testing, described above, the B17s did occasionally pick up system damage.  In only one trial out of ten, with only one out of three planes, was that damage enough to kill the B17 or render it unable to drop its bombs.

[Pand]

In my testing, described above, the B17s did occasionally pick up system damage.  In only one trial out of ten, with only one out of three planes, was that damage enough to kill the B17 or render it unable to drop its bombs.

So 3 bombers times 10 trials = 30 bombers .... with only 1 bomber becoming disabled, that's 3.33% of all the bombers flying over the CV getting downed.   The test might be more valid if we only used 1 bomber (instead of a formation), because the puffy firing at the primary aircraft might have randomly hit and downed a drone with an actual miss.

I wonder if the same test were done with 30 individual trials of a fighter flying over the CV how the numbers would turn out.

I look forward to all of the testing results!  those spending the time!

[ImADot]

Let's not forget the damage potential of a single flak burst. How many "damage points" does a bomber have? How about a fighter? How much bigger is a bomber than a fighter, and how much closer are critical components on a fighter as compared to a bomber? Given a flak burst of equal distance, it seems reasonable that the fighter would suffer greater and possible catastrophic damage from a single burst than would a bomber.

How do you propose to measure how many damage points are being dealt out during any kind of testing, unless a part gets damaged? Just because a bomber doesn't go down or doesn't get a major part get destroyed, doesn't mean it isn't getting hit.

I personally would like to see manned 5" puffy damage friendlies...they always seem to up off the carrier and fly straight up towards the incoming bombers, blocking my shots. They almost always can't get up to the bombers in time, and then the CV goes down because all of my shots got nerfed right behind the friendly instead of blowing up in front of the bombers.

[Lab Rat 3947]

Try this idea on for size.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, several American pilots were shot down, being mistaken for more Japanese attackers.
If I remember correctly, on D-Day Normandy, Jimmy Doolittle flew over the area to see how the invasion was going. He flew a P38 because of its unique shape; i.e. "Hey Guys, I'm not the enemy, don't shoot at me."
Therefore, P38s should be the only plane immune from friendly puffy ack. OK, not immune but a Lightning should only have a 10% chance of being hit. Anything else, it stays the way it is.   
Now is this my sense of humor     or do I have a valid point     

[bustr]

Wonder if Hitech could add a damage counter output option to the films so you can watch it count up for every impact on each aricraft listed in the right hand speed and distance ledger. That might help in general with some of the "I saw (x, y, z), you saw different (c, d, g)" whizzing matches, where Hitech's verasity gets challenged when he attempts to referee and help players understand what happened.

Then the players could be told to stop whizzing about it unless they have a film. No filmy, no whiny for youy......